|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 4:40 pm: | 
|
It often seems to me that the depressive Montague Druitt,
a young, handsome, upper middle class school teacher,barrister,sportsman and gifted cricketer, provided the world with a sort of "sacrificial Jack".
Because of his suicide and being posthumously named by Machnaghten as his prime suspect for "Jack the Ripper" there has come to be a touch of the self
sacrificing heroism of Sydney Carton about Druitt who like Carton was a barrister and "distressed to the point of suicide".
In the "Tale of Two Cities" Dicken"s has the distressed Carton sacrificing all for a "higher ideal/place"-which in a certain way could be seen as a bit similar to the sacrifice Druitt might have made to save his family from his downward slide into madness.
In fact Druitt has almost acquired a "mythlike" status as THE "symbolic sacrifice" for whoever it was who actually was the Ripper -although its true to say that only a few have ever really believed Machnaghten"s claims.
I was fascinated to read Dr Bruno Bettelheim"s "Uses of Enchantment"-especially the chapters on the "Animal Groom Cycle of Fairy Tales"-Bluebeard and such like-- and the important role myths and fairy tales play in shaping our unconscious minds and in giving us sometimes wise and sometimes "magical" solutions to the various problems and mysteries we encounter.
Natalie
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 843
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I don't know if I would use the word "myth" to describe it, but I think I may understand what you mean. (You are the expert in language, not I, so your use of the word may be correct).
Montague John Druitt is for me a poignant enigma. His life story is a mix of triumph, near-miss, and pathos. While I personally believe him to be our "best suspect" at the same time I hope that it was not he who committed these unspeakable deeds. Why? Because I see much of myself in Montague Druitt. I was just about his age at death when I started studying this case (since which time I have obviously transcended the onset of middle age!). Like Montague, I can point to some significant achievements in my early years and to establishing a respectable career. Like Montague, I can also muse about shortcomings, underachievements, and failures to live up to my own expectations. To believe that Montague Druitt was capable of such acts is to admit to the possibility that such potential exists within me -- indeed, within most. I feel a kinship for Montague which I do not want sullied by his implication in the Whitechapel affair. Montague is the sort that I would have liked to have enjoyed a pint with at a favorite pub after a cricket match sometime in the early summer of 1888 and maybe cheered his spirits. Perhaps that would have changed history.
But...we have a body of evidence that points to a strong belief in Scotland Yard in the guilt of a "drowned doctor" suspect. For whatever reason, Macnaghten believed this suspect to be Montague Druitt -- or believed Montague Druitt to be this suspect. His reasoning is only partly explained but enough is there to show that it was not merely his timely suicide that prompted Sir Melville's identification.
If I could be excused for a little plug here, I have an article in the upcoming issue of Ripper Notes that will delve into the matter further.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on June 14, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2038
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Thankyou for your post Andrew which I found rather moving actually and I understand what you are saying.
Yes,I must make that commitment which I have been meaning to do for sometime and subscribe
to Ripper Notes!
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 844
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
See, Dan, I just got you a subscription. That ought to be worth something! 
Andy S. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 578
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Andrew..
There ought to be a thread for people to express attachments or sentiments,such as you have bravely,eloquently,and kindly done, that Ripperologists have, regarding suspects and victims. I know some of the ladies have soft spots for some of the victims,and some of us may also see a person in our life that is similar to a suspect such as Druitt.
I put on a hat just to take it off for you,Andy. That was a very decent post,sir,if I may say.
..and if anyone doesn't subscribe to Ripper Notes, this is the time to do it,peeps ! Suspects and Witnesses issue...sounds like a winner from here !
(Message edited by howard on June 14, 2005)
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 659
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Not sure I agree, Natalie. I have certainly never perceived MJD in those terms.
In the one letter we have of his, critiquing some work done by a neice as I recall, he comes over as a pedantic bore.
There is an element of tragedy in his life - as we know it - because he seems an ordinary Joe who killed himself and was later fingered as Jack. If we knew more about him we might take a different view - especially if we had the private information Macnaghten claimed to have.
Certainly, I don't see Druitt as remotely Carton-like or self-sacrificing.
But maybe I'm just a hard-hearted old cynic!!
I think MJD remains an interesting and plausible suspect, though I am more drawn to a Kosminski-type solution (ie an anonymois, perhaps Jewish Eastender/local) rather than a "toff" (as I would class Druitt).
But no, I don't think he has anything like a myth-like status.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Well Phil I picked up a different view from his celebration of cricket in particular-a sort of Gatsby like ambition to excel in the world-at least in the world of sports.
I was also interested in his love of debate-at university anyway.Nothing dry about any of this really.
But the letter-well yes-very dutiful and very boring -let him at the cricket-much more interesting and fun.
Howard-I completely agree with you here-why not?
Natalie |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
". I know some of the ladies have soft spots for some of the victims"
It's not just the ladies, How. I confess that I have always felt for Stride. All the unfortunates' stories have tragic elements to them, but Stride's was somehow more poignant to me. I can also see that at one point in her life she may well have been quite attractive.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 845
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Let me just add that of all the suspects, Druitt is the only one that comes across as a real person to me. The rest are characitures, sketches, incomplete figures forever hidden in shadow.
Last May I was in London and visited a few Druitt sites, primarily Eliot Place and King's Bench Walk. At KBW I must admit to feeling a foreboding presence. Now, as I don't believe in ghosts, I attribute this to the Georgian-period character that still pervades the square. Then, I found as I wrote in my article a hypothetical paragraph describing Druitt leaving 9 Eliot Place for the last time in the pre-dawn hours of December 1, 1888, turning right and walking toward the South Eastern Railway station with the cricket pitches upon which he had gained so much notoriety just off left shoulder -- I could place myself in Monty's body with no difficulty. Nothing paranormal here, just that he seems a "real person" to me.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2044
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
The frustrating part for me is how everything hangs on Machnaghten"s memorandum,especially since
he claims to have seen evidence which he destroyed all trace of.
But short of discovering blood stained clothing in Druitt"s rooms, to gether with the murder weapon I cant see it myself.I mean what evidence can he have destroyed?If it was a confession it still would not mean he was the Whitechapel murderer.
I just wonder if Machnaghten made it all up
quite frankly.To make out he knew the real identity of the killer.
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 848
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Pardon me but I don't think Macnaghten ever said he had seen evidence which he then destroyed. That's not what the memorandum says and I don't think it says that in his memoirs, either.
What MM did say was that he had received "private information" which convinced him that Montague's family believed he was Jack the Ripper. MM did not say where this "private information" came from or whether it was in tangible form. We will probably never know the nature of this "private information" or be able to evaluate its credibility. We have to content ourselves with the knowledge that some such evidence did exist but that it is of unknown value.
Melville Macnaghten was not an incapable man. He did not attain his position by misjudging evidence. I don't believe he simply made this up, either. If he did make it up he would have projected more certainty about Druitt being the Ripper. Instead, he only tentatively identified him as the most likely suspect.
In his memoirs, MM did say that "certain facts" pointing to the conclusion that the Ripper killed himself shortly after the Kelly murder were not in police possession until after Macnaghten joined the force (1889). He does not say what these "certain facts" were or whether they are in tangible form.
Andy S. |
Uriah Hexam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 1:09 am: |
|
What a fascinating and moving thread!
I too am drawn to Druitt because he seems so real to me, a kind of melancholy product of Victorian society. My "introduction" to him was in Tom Cullen's exceptionally vivid book. My emotional connection, as it were, to Druitt also stems from the real possibility of his being afflicted with a mental illness, which seems to hold whether or not he was the Whitechapel murderer. I suffer from a rapid-cycling bipolar disorder and schizo-affective disorder. As bad as that is, it must have been an unusually hellish ordeal in the days before lithium. There is nothing more I can add that would improve on Mr. Spallek's excellent comments.
Thank you. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Hi Andy S.
Like Natalie, I too found your post very poignant.
Like you, I'd rather someone else would one day be proved to be the Whitechapel murderer.
Unfortunately, also like you, I believe him to be the likliest of all the suspects that research has turned up in these 117 years.
If ever conclusively proved, it would be the final terrible tragedy for a cursed and tragic family.
Andy, I'm going to print out that brilliant post, and keep it.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
I have always had a question about Druitt and so I will post it here because this forum seems to be active. Like most of the people on the boards, I have read Sugden. Although it was a while ago, I recall that Sugden basically dismissed Druitt as a viable suspect based, primarily, on published newspaper articles which described his participation in cricket matches on a particular date. If I recall correctly, Sugden then compared those dates with the dates of the murders and published train schedules from the time. His conclusion was that it would have been extremely difficult, although not impossible, for Druitt to have been JTR based on these time frames. I know that Sugden is considered a heavyweight in Ripperology, yet many knowledgable people on these boards consider Druitt a prime suspect. If you are one of those people who favor Druitt, how to you address the problems created by the timeline that Sugden describes. I don't mean this to be a criticism of your view or a challenge to it. I am simply wondering if other information has come to light or if Sugden made a mistake in his assumptions and calculations. I would appreciate comments. Thanks. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 667
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
cd - it is not IMPOSSIBLE for MJD to have been the Ripper. Plus, Melvile Macnaghten (whom I respect highly) said he had private information that led him to the conclusion that MJD was a likely suspect.
Sorry Natalie, but your assessment of macnaghten is way off. Thanks Andrew for your excellent refutation.
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 849
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
That's a good question. I read Sugden long ago and discounted Druitt at the time because of his conclusions. The answer to your question will be in my article but I'll give you a preview!
Druitt participated in a cricket match near Bournmouth the day after Polly Nicholls murder. But remember that Nicholls was murdered in the pre-dawn hours, giving Druitt more than 24 hours to make the 100-mile rail journey. Plenty of time. Leighton says that Druitt was in court in the West Country on the day after the double event (although cites no evidence, so I'm not convinced). But remember again that Eddowes was murdered shortly after midnight -- so Druitt had well over 24 hours to make this journey. Again, plenty of time. The most troublesome appearance is that cricket match at Blackheath on the very day of Anne Chapman's murder. But this is only a short train ride from Cannon Street, near the East End, 30-minutes today and probably not much longer in 1888. Time would be tight, but he could make it.
Another difficulty for some is that Druitt was playing cricket at Bournmouth a few days before Tabram's murder and a few days after it. This being summer holiday from school, some say it is unlikely that Druitt would have returned to London in between these matches to commit the murder. Two things to remember here. Druitt may have had legal commitments that prompted his return to London and most Ripperologists (myslef inlcuded -- tho many are now reconsidering) think it unlikely that Tabram was a Ripper victim.
I hope this helps!
Andy S.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
I think you get me a bit wrong over Macnaghten actually.
I dont think anything much about him.Just that he was a bit dilettante about it all.Didnt pay attention to the details and came up with a half baked solution.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Uriah,
Thankyou for sharing that.
Take Care and keep on posting-its good to hear from you,
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 668
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:44 am: |
|
How can you say MM's solution was half-baked, Ntalie, when we don't have the evidence he had?
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:22 am: |
|
Andrew
Pardon me but I don't think Macnaghten ever said he had seen evidence which he then destroyed. That's not what the memorandum says and I don't think it says that in his memoirs, either.
I think this is what Natalie was referring to (from the A-Z entry on Macnaghten):
Macnaghten was further reported in the Daily Mail as saying that 'the greatest regret of his life was that he joined the force six months after "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide', and continuing: 'Of course he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me. I have destroyed all my documents and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.'
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2051
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
On the basis that he didnt even bother to check the coroners reports to get his information right on the man"s d.o.b.: or occupation.
All we have is a bundle of half truths -a doctor ,aged 41 etc prepared for whoever and then we are told by Macnaghten that this man was probably Jack the Ripper.
Placed alongside Anderson"s Kosminski-again
with dates all muddled up, Abberline"s assertion that these two had it totally wrong and were talking nonsense
and Littlechilds 6ft 1 in Tumblety-[complete with music hall credentials ]it seems to me they either didnt have a clue who the ripper was or someone somewhere did and was trying to throw others off the scent.
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 670
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
But Natalie, you miss the point.
MM was absolutely spot on in the thrust of what he wrote. MJD WAS a professional man, other details are slips of memory (age out by 10 years, but the fact that it was "something"=1 is right). But the key point is that it is the THRUST that matters in the memo - the case being argued - NOT the detail. this memo was not for outside consumption, it was a reminder of an approach put on the file.
Had any information been sent to Ministers or made public, I have no doubt that the facts would have been checked.
In summary MM is acurate in every respect that matters.
It appears Natalie that you just want the case to be complex and conspiratorial. I think simple explanations are best. As I am debating with AP on another thread currently, I think a wholly reasonable case can be made for MMs reliability and integrity.
Phil |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Hi cd,
You might be interested in the dissertation by Matthew Fletcher. You can read it hear at the Casebook.
Your friend, Brad |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 852
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Thanks, Chris for reminding me of that statement by MM. I had forgotten about it. (Sorry, Natalie). However, it was not necessarily "evidence" that MM destroyed, only his "documents." If I remember, this is the article in which MM says that he has no intention of writing his memoirs -- and then a year later, out come his memoirs: "Days of my Years."
Natalie,
I don't know that MM failed to consult the coroner's report. He apparently did not look closely at the age, however. Druitt's correct profession was listed on his death certificate but may or may not have been on the coroner's report.
Sir Melville did get some basic details wrong about Druitt and that is troubling, no doubt about it. It opens the door for the possibility that MM mistakenly assigned Druitt's name to a different suspect altogether, perhaps a suspect who was a drowned doctor aged 41. There are, however, difficulties with this idea. First, age 41 is a bit too old to match the suspect description. More importantly, despite exhaustive research no one has ever found a record or news report of an actual doctor found drowned in the Thames between November 1888 and January 1889. Some early newspaper reports identified Druitt as a doctor, however. I suspect what happened was that some lead investigator at the time had a mistaken first impression (from misinformation) and that mistaken first impression is what was propagated throughout the Department. We all know how difficult it is to get a first impression out of our heads, even when it is wrong. It sticks. There is no doubt that a "drowned doctor" was suspected by several SY officials. If there was no actual "drowned doctor" then who must this be, if not Druitt?
As to Druitt's age, it may be that Sir Melville was referring to some document that merely listed Druitt birth year and not his age. It may have been a mistake in arithmetic rather than memory that prompted this error since it is a mistake of an even 10 years. I've done this numerous times. But let's remember that Druitt's actual age of 31 makes him a better suspect than if he were actually 41.
No matter how you slice it, there were two main strands of suspects within Scotland Yard: (1) A "Foreign Jew" (typified by Kosminski and championed by Anderson) and (2) a "Drowned Doctor" (typified by Druitt and championed by Macnaghten). Whom do I trust more, Anderson or Macnaghten? Well, Anderson has always been a sort of goof-ball in my mind. He's one who "can't be bothered" by the murders. He's off in Switzerland and France when most of them take place and has to be ordered to return. Upon his return he boasts that now that he's back the case will be solved instantly! Anderson has very little credibility in my mind.
What of Ostrog? Why is he on MM's list? I think he fits loosely into the "Foreign Jew" suspect-type (although I don't believe he was Jewish). We now know that he was in france during the murders, so we eliminate him. But MM says that his whereabouts during the murders could not be established. All I can conjecture is that SY did not know what we know now and so he could not be exonerated then.
Then there is the puzzling statement of Abberline identifying Klosowski as the Ripper. Klosowski does also fit loosely into the "Foreign Jew" suspect type (even tho he's not Jewish) I think it is possible that this is a "red-herring" given to the press to throw them off the trail of Druitt. Abberline is from Dorset and would shortly retire to Bournmouth. He may have known and been friends with the Druitts (a prominent area family). Who knows, he may have even done some private investigating for the Druitt law firm. But I admit, when we start speculating about cover-ups we strain our credulity.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on June 16, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Thanks for your very thoughtful and considered post.
These are all possibilities.But the difficulty for me is twofold.
First we have Macnaghten and Anderson offering their two different Prime Suspects[Anderson actually claimed he knew "the low level Jew" was the ripper["low-level"?-did he mean "poor"?]
Now no evidence was offered by either man for either suspect- instead a wad of error ridden data has found its way into the arena which only adds more bewilderment to the case.
To me this suggests that almost certainly neither man knew the true identity of Jack the Ripper.Granted they may have made imaginative guesses---but most probably they did not know.
Moreover I believe that had they really known it would not have been kept a secret.No chief of police could have allowed a situation to exist
where the identity was kept secret of the most hunted and notorious murderer of all time.
The internal ,external, as well as financial pressures would have been impossible to
manage while keeping an international public,
clamouring for information, at bay.
So what we have I think is a kind of palliative which has the benefit of adding spice to each man"s "memoirs",prevents both men from looking like failures in their very senior posts but actually doesnt get too much press because there isnt any way any of us can prove or disprove their claims-since one was in an Asylum and the other was dead.
So we end up just having to take their word for it in good faith.
But one man didnt apparently take their word for it and that was Abberline.
He clearly thought it all a lot of rubbish----and said so!
And in my view ,once again if they had really known who JtR was---- Abberline would have been one of the first to know!
The only remaining possibility then IMHO is that one of them MAY have been involved in a cover up of some kind.
.....and that is my current thinking.
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 678
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Very predictable, Natalie...
Has it occurred to you, that the two men you mention were not necessarily writing for posterity, but for their own time.
What may seen hints or innuendo to us may have been interpreted slightly differently then. Anderson's obvious hyperbole, for instance, is IMHO simply equivalent to the way an article would be written for The Mirror or The Sun today spiced up with a hint of "kiss and tell".
I know Anderson was dropping hints like mad, though I think he (like MM) may have had more evidence than we do now. But equally, when writing for contemporaries one doesn't have to spell things out as one does if consciously writing for those who will come.
In 1816, if one said, "the victor of Waterloo" (the anniversary is in 2 days time) everyone would have known who was meant, instantly. Today that might not be the case.
I know this approach to the writing at issue is unlikely to mean anything to you, natalie, but I put the case, anyway.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2054
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Listen mate
if dear old MM or A had known who he was we would too.They didnt and neither do we.
natalie |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I have been moved by reading the number of comments on this thread which are unique of any concerning any of the other major suspects - Monty Druitt seems to be the only Ripper suspect that people feel sorry for. Think about it.
One really can't feel too sorry about the fates of Deeming, Cream, Chapman, or Bury. Even if you are opposed to capital punishment, the stories about those four leave no room for really empathising with their plights. Had they gone to prison for life you still would have felt that they got what they deserved.
Doc Tumblety and D'Onston Stevenson are fascinating in their colorful careers, but Tumblety is a quack and gets into all kinds of questionable scrapes, and Stevenson is a moody egomaniac regarding his powers with black magic.
Sickert is a reasonably good artist (I hesitate to say great, as I would call Van Gogh or Renoir great), but nothing makes him really sympthetic to me. I realize that Sitwell and others show he was good company, but they don't make me wish I could assist him if he needed help.
Maybrick gets some sympathy due to his fate - whether Florence did him in or not - but he is a male chauvinist and possibly a wife beater (at one point at least). Hardly a likeable man.
Even Mary Kelly's boyfriend is hard to really get into - there is less information about his personality than Druitt.
No Monty is the only one of the leading suspects that is a personality, and gets sympathy for whatever sent him into his final stages of dementia and (apparent) self-destruction. I think he is also the only one of the suspects that most of us would like to find out more about to prove he was innocent of Macnaughton's suspicions.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2057
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
Its quite true Jeff-Druitt is the one who persuades us of our vulnerabilities--"there but for the grace of God....."-his solitude and distresses made so evident in the end.
I think too its because he seems to embody what Shakespeare meant when he said of Hamlet through Ophelia "Th"expectancy and rose of the fair state..........the observed of all observers
quite,quite down"-
But while Druitt may be understandable because he seems to be on the brink of madness ---this figure of "blown youth blasted with ectasy"[Hamlet again] he is not the only suspect who has my sympathy.
Aaron Kosminski, the poor immigrant Jewish hairdresser,clever enough to have recorded evidence of being able to read and write at a time when many could not,but who ended his days in the ghostly wards of Leavesdon Asylum he too is a rather tragic figure.
And Thomas Cutbush who also became catatonic
despite I would guess a reasonable start at early manhood with his bright mind and imaginative capabilities.
So Yes Jeff,Druitt of all the suspects does seem the most capable of
engaging our sympathetic understanding but there were others who seem to have had their equilibrium blown apart in similar fashion.
Best Wishes
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 682
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
I think an enormous amount of the sympathy attaching to Druitt - if that is indeed the case - results from the nature of the pictures of him.
Had he looked like Ostrog, Maybrick, Tumblety or Stephenson I suspect he would be regarded less "romantically".
JK Stephen and Sickert were goodlooking lads in their day, but as soon as one delves into their characters, disturbing elements arise. For Stephen his misogeny; for Sickert the subject matter and nature of many of his paintings.
The narrative of his career apart, Druitt comes across more blandly - some sporting interests make him "one of the lads", maybe. If we had more of his writings or the views of others about him, our view might change.
So all down to his pics in my view.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
Placed alongside Anderson"s Kosminski-again
with dates all muddled up, Abberline"s assertion that these two had it totally wrong and were talking nonsense
and Littlechilds 6ft 1 in Tumblety-[complete with music hall credentials ]it seems to me they either didnt have a clue who the ripper was or someone somewhere did and was trying to throw others off the scent.
We have Anderson who claimed it was a definitely ascertained fact that Jack was a Polish Jew.
We have Macnaghten suspecting that Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog were all more likely to have been Jack than Cutbush.
We have Littlechild describing Tumblety as a very likely suspect, believing that he committed suicide after the last murder.
A recurring theme here is that the named suspect was believed to be sexually insane, and have ended up either dribbling in an asylum or dead by his own hand, unable to function at some point after the destruction of MJK.
This may have been a very common perception at the time. But was it an accurate one?
How many serial killers since Jack's day have been declared hopelessly insane, or have only been identified after having done away with themselves?
And does the fact that at least four different individuals were named as definite, possible or likely rippers, by these three individual authorities, suggest that they were all clutching at one or more of the straws that represented, for them, what Jack was made of?
If one of them got Jack fundamentally wrong, is it not probable that they all did?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 17, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3602
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
I totally agree with you, Caz.
The fact that most of the authorities on the case seems to have had their own opinions about who the killer was (contemporary or in retrospect), makes it quite clear that they had no idea about the true identity of the Ripper. I think that comes out rather evident if one studies the internal police communication.
They may have seriously suspected a number of individuals, or formed personal opinions about some, but that is something else than knowing with certainty and for a fact who the killer was.
If they did, I can't see why their opinions differed that much, unless one believes in hysterical and tedious cover-ups and manipulation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 683
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
But in any organisation you are surely likely to get shades of opinion between members of staff.
The reason for that may be their closeness to events; their expertise or experience; their judgement and the perspective they have on the case.
There is no essential contradiction between Anderson and MM for instance. MM simply caveats Anderson's view within a list of three - which is probably the correct thing to do. After all, MM was writing for the file and perhaps his remarks might be drawn on by Ministers (they weren't in the event) and no charges had been brought - so any of three (and an implication of more) being more likely than another individual was probably called for.
Anderson's remarks are in a public forum and clearly presented as his own view.
Littlechild knew about MJD (although he thought of him as a doctor, probably reflecting his reading of MM's memo) but disagreed. Again he was writing in a private capacity and to someone who had asked a specific question. He expressed his own opinion as he was entitled to do.
Anyone who has worked at any sort of senior level in a large organisation will, I am sure, be aware that there can be a difference between one's own view or preference and company policy. The decision goes against you, you loyally execute the company policy (either understanding the reasons for it or not) but you may still have
your own view and that is perfectly legitimate.
As Jack was never brought to trial, I find no problem with assuming that by the early 1890s there was a SY view of who was guilty - individual or "type" (perhaps one largely agreed on by senior officials) which may have differed from the views of more junior individuals or the assessment even of those who signed up to the "official" view. No cover-up, no discord - just the usual way an office works.
So I think I agree with you, Glenn.
Phil
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Phil
Littlechild knew about MJD (although he thought of him as a doctor, probably reflecting his reading of MM's memo) but disagreed.
I read it that Sims had heard of a "Dr D" (probably Druitt, through his contact with Macnaghten), and asked Littlechild about this, but littlechild didn't know of a "Dr D", and suggested someone might have misheard "Dr T" (Tumblety).
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2058
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Yes----it just about sums all this up.They couldnt even dot their "i"s" or cross their "t"s"over it all or get any one"s name right who they accused ,posthumously of being Jack the Ripper ----what an epitaph to give someone who was innocent!
And these jolly decent civil servants,Phil, ---Anderson ,Machnaghten and Dew all published lucrative "memoirs" cashing in on their famed celebrity as " Jack the Ripper" cops!
Anderson to his eternal credit and honour did not.
i think I like and trust Abberline"s word more than any of theirs.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 685
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
You know my views on your approach, Natalie. Good luck to you.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2059
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Whoops!
---dotted my "i" by mistake!
AND said Anderson instead of dear old Abberline[second line from end above]
Apologies
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 853
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Yes, Chris, you are correct. Sims had apparently asked Littlechild about a "Dr D," whom we may assume is Druitt. Littlechild's reply is that he has never heard of a "Dr D" but he knows about a "Dr T," which is Tumblety.
There just isn't nearly the diversity of opinion concerning suspects that is being portrayed. Scotland Yard suspects fall into two categories: a "drowned doctor" and a "foreign Jew" if we discount Abberline (and I am developing my own opinion on his reason for naming Klosowski). Littlechild is too far removed for his information to be given the same weight, though it probably reflects a genuine SY suspicion of Tumblety for a brief time. [Actually, Tumblety and Ostrog have certain similarities about them].
Now, Macnaghten never categorically states that he knows the identity of the Ripper. In one version of the memorandum he clearly leans toward Druitt but softens this by the caveat that "the truth" did lie at the bottom of the Thames -- "if my conjections be correct." In his published memoirs he is very indefinite, giving only clues of the type of person who would commit these crimes. The closest he comes to claiming certain knowledge of the Ripper's identity is in the 1913 interview referenced above (the one in which he says he will write no memoirs): "I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide," said McNaughton, "but that and other secrets never will be revealed by me." (And why, incidentally, are these "secrets?") The only clue in this interview is that MM's suspect committed suicide in November 1888.
My point is that there were not many suspects among Scotland Yard investigators. There were essentially two, although there may have been confusion over the precise identity of these two suspects. The "Anderson school" favored the "foreign Jew" and the "Macnaghten school" favored the "drowned doctor." Anderson projected certainty, primarily based upon witness identification, and Macnaghten did not. But Anderson is more questionable on the grounds of his rather more eccentric personality.
Andy S.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4563
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Hi all
I think it's worth pointing out that one name was mentioned by two policemen : Kosminski.
This in itself isn't conclusive but the Kosminskists will say that it should be thrown in as a plus factor, which is fair enough.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 854
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Robert,
I'm not sure I get your point. Kosminski is mentioned by Macnagthen but is basically dismissed by him in favor of Druitt. I don't see Macnaghten's mention as a "plus" for Kosminski except to confirm that he was indeed a suspect. Anderson and Swanson believe that Kosminski is the Ripper (assuming Swanson correctly identified Anderson's suspect. I have little doubt that Swanson shared Anderson's certainty).
But I wouldn't overemphasize the mention of names. I repeat that there was no actual doctor found drowned in the Thames during this period but Montague Druitt was erroneously identified as a doctor in initial press reports. If the "drowned doctor" suspect is not Druitt, then who? In other words all the "drowned doctor" references probably refer, by default, to Druitt.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4565
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
Even though Macnaghten eventually veers towards Druitt, I do feel that the mention of Kosminski's name by two top policemen is a plus for the Kosminski theory - that is, if we are to take any notice at all of what the various policemen have said.
The tendency of recent posts has seemed to be that the the policemen were groping in the dark - which may or may not be true - but it's still a fact that one name is mentioned twice.
Robert |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Andrew
I repeat that there was no actual doctor found drowned in the Thames during this period but Montague Druitt was erroneously identified as a doctor in initial press reports. If the "drowned doctor" suspect is not Druitt, then who?
I really don't think there was ever any "drowned doctor" suspect other than Druitt. To my mind the press rumour from the West Country in 1891 about the drowned suspect who was a surgeon's son confirms that Druitt was meant - and also suggests how by a process of "chinese whispers", the suspect could have been thought to be a doctor, rather than a doctor's son.
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 855
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Exactly, Chris. And once an erroneous fist impression is ingrained in our minds if it most difficult to eradicate. That Sir Melville could, six years on, have reverted to this erroneous impression is not all that surprising.
Andy S. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 688
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 1:33 am: |
|
Andy - MM did not revert to anything six years on. His thesis was NOT about the details of Druitt's, Kosminski's or Ostrog's lives, but that these three suspects were more likely than Cutbush to have been Jack.
In any terms that matter, MM was right, Druitt came from the "professional" middle-class unlike either of the others. That was what mattered. In that context the detail is not particularly relevant.
Having given the specific name, and with the (slightly erroneous) particulars he provides, we cannot doubt that he meant the man he mentioned.
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 856
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 2:18 am: |
|
Phil,
Very little doubt that MM meant Druitt. If there had been an actual doctor drown in the Thames during this period I would leave the door open for a case of mistaken identity. But since there was no real drowned doctor, MM must have meant Druitt.
What MM may have "reverted" to was a mistaken first impression (based on initial misinformation) that Druitt was a doctor. We know how hard it is to get a first impression out of our minds, even if it a mistaken one.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4567
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 5:13 am: |
|
Well, "said to be a doctor" allows an escape hatch. But no such qualification with the "sexually insane" remark.
Robert |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1072
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
Robert
Well, "said to be a doctor" allows an escape hatch. But no such qualification with the "sexually insane" remark.
Oddly enough, the Aberconway version says without qualification that he was a doctor, but only that "it was alleged that he was sexually insane", whereas in the official version he is only "said to be a doctor", but described as "sexually insane" without qualification.
So it seems Macnaghten was unsure about both aspects, though I still wonder whether "alleged" coudl have a more precise meaning - that a specific "allegation" of sexual misconduct had been made against him. However, as has been pointed out, Macnaghten could hardly have known of a specific allegation concerning the school, or he would have remembered that Druitt was a schoolmaster, not a doctor. Perhaps the most straightforward interpretation is that the information about "sexual insanity" ultimately from the family, together with their suspicion (hardened to belief in the official version) that he was the murderer.
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 691
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
...together with their suspicion (hardened to belief in the official version) that he was the murderer.
Chris - genuine question, I'm not being rhetorical. On what basis do you state with such certainty that the family only had suspicions and the official version hardened it? I can see the case that might be made based on MM's changes, but do you have additional grounds?
Phil
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Phil
I'm just comparing the two versions (as printed by Sugden).
The Aberconway one reads:
From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane.
The official one reads:
He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.
Yet another thing to be aware of is the possibility that Macnaghten was confusing Druitt's family with his employer. There may be a hint of this in one of G. R. Sims's later pieces (from 1915, for which Macnaghten was presumably the source), which refers to
the mad doctor who lived with his people at Blackheath, and who, during his occasional absences from home, committed the crimes which won him world-wide infamy as 'Jack the Ripper'.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on June 18, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Hi All,
It seems to me that they made up for the lack of any hard evidence by choosing their suspects according to their individual perceptions of the type of man capable of committing such atrocities.
The focus seems to have been on men considered in that era to be sexually insane, who either committed suicide after MJK or were committed to an asylum.
My question is: if Jack were at work today, in the same area, would we not seriously worry if we thought the police were looking for a mad doctor, suicidal schoolmaster, or mentally ill member of the local Bengali community?
Love,
Caz
X |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
